2020 Democrats

[hornetsnest]

2020 Democrats Communists

Fixed that for you^^

[1715555923]

1715555923

[1715555923]

1715555923

[1715555923]

1715555923

[theymos]

Normally, unemployment benefits will only pay for about enough to pay for basic necessities and maybe enough to pay for gas to go to job interviews. The enhanced unemployment benefits have resulted in over 2/3 of people who lost their jobs making more on unemployment than they were making, softening the blow of losing their jobs. Last month, the economy added ~2.5 million jobs, when the expectation was nearly 8.5 million jobs lost, a swing of nearly 11 million jobs. Those that have a government-insured mortgage are able to receive 12 months of forbearance. I think most of the economic pain is going to be kicked past the election; I think this was probably by design.

The unemployment numbers are way too low. Tax withholding data shows a year-over-year reduction of 30% in April and 33% in May. This means that nation-wide total payrolls (including PPP-supported payrolls but not including unemployment payments) are down by roughly those measures. However, the BLS employment rate is down year-over-year only 14.9% in April and 12.5% in May. This makes me think that a whole hell of a lot of people -- much more than even the BLS acknowledges as being possible miscategorizations -- are being counted as employed in the unemployment number, but actually have substantially reduced hours or are somehow otherwise not counted as unemployed.

PPP is running out about now. The enhanced unemployment benefits end July 31. The $1200 payment is probably roughly spent now by the low-income people who relied upon it. If Trump wants to temporarily wallpaper over this problem until November, he needs to get congress to pump more stimulus into the economy soon, and probably even more than last time will be required. Otherwise I think that this is going to turn into a widespread economic disaster in the next couple of months. Some people think that the action by congress and the Fed bridged the pre-lockdown and post-lockdown economies, and the recovery will therefore be relatively complete, but I really doubt it: the economic damage done by the shutdowns was catastrophic, a lot of business will not be able to resume properly, and a lot of these jobs will not be coming back anytime soon. Any past or future stimulus will IMO only be opiates which temporarily delay the symptoms without actually reducing the total damage, and in fact they'll probably make the total damage worse.

Whoever Biden chooses to be VP will effectively be the president on Feb 1 2021 if Biden is elected. They will probably have the title of President by the end of 2024. I would reserve judgment until Biden announces his VP pick, however since effectively winning the nomination, Biden has been pulled further to the left by Bernie Bros, so who knows what kind of presidency a Biden administration would be.

I've thought from the start that it'll be Kamala Harris, and I still think so. This'll make the ticket even worse, since she's an authoritarian neoliberal who only cares about power.

[Spendulus]

....

I've thought from the start that it'll be Kamala Harris, and I still think so. This'll make the ticket even worse, since she's an authoritarian neoliberal who only cares about power.

If so, then the future "philosophy" of the Democratic Party is right out in the open.

[PrimeNumber7]

Normally, unemployment benefits will only pay for about enough to pay for basic necessities and maybe enough to pay for gas to go to job interviews. The enhanced unemployment benefits have resulted in over 2/3 of people who lost their jobs making more on unemployment than they were making, softening the blow of losing their jobs. Last month, the economy added ~2.5 million jobs, when the expectation was nearly 8.5 million jobs lost, a swing of nearly 11 million jobs. Those that have a government-insured mortgage are able to receive 12 months of forbearance. I think most of the economic pain is going to be kicked past the election; I think this was probably by design.

The unemployment numbers are way too low. Tax withholding data shows a year-over-year reduction of 30% in April and 33% in May. This means that nation-wide total payrolls (including PPP-supported payrolls but not including unemployment payments) are down by roughly those measures. However, the BLS employment rate is down year-over-year only 14.9% in April and 12.5% in May. This makes me think that a whole hell of a lot of people -- much more than even the BLS acknowledges as being possible miscategorizations -- are being counted as employed in the unemployment number, but actually have substantially reduced hours or are somehow otherwise not counted as unemployed.

The CBO has reported that amounts withheld from paychecks in May fell by 15%, and said this is because of declining wages and certain provisions in the CARES act, such as businesses being able to defer payment of certain taxes.

The labor participation rate fell about 3% from February to April, and rebounded a bit in May. The average number of hours worked is largely unchanged. I don't think the unemployment rate factors the 'gig economy' type workers such as Uber drivers, and hair stylists (who are apparently often independent contractors), who are likely doing especially bad for the most part.

I believe the sharp reversal in the change in the number of jobs from April to May, in addition to the pent up demand from the stimulus payments and the 2/3 of unemployed making more on unemployment means that once states reopen, jobs should quickly come back. We may not get back to employment levels of early this year for quite some time, but 3-4% unemployment is I believe above full employment and not sustainable.

PPP is running out about now. The enhanced unemployment benefits end July 31. The $1200 payment is probably roughly spent now by the low-income people who relied upon it. If Trump wants to temporarily wallpaper over this problem until November, he needs to get congress to pump more stimulus into the economy soon, and probably even more than last time will be required. Otherwise I think that this is going to turn into a widespread economic disaster in the next couple of months. Some people think that the action by congress and the Fed bridged the pre-lockdown and post-lockdown economies, and the recovery will therefore be relatively complete, but I really doubt it: the economic damage done by the shutdowns was catastrophic, a lot of business will not be able to resume properly, and a lot of these jobs will not be coming back anytime soon. Any past or future stimulus will IMO only be opiates which temporarily delay the symptoms without actually reducing the total damage, and in fact they'll probably make the total damage worse.

There is about $130 billion in PPP funding remaining out of about $660 billion in total funding. I don't see this running out anytime soon.

The $1200 payment I believe likely was put in the bank for the most part. The personal savings rate was 33% in April, which was probably a combination of the $1200 stimulus, added income from enhanced unemployment benefits, and people being unable to spend money in most social settings due to government-mandated closures. I believe once people are getting back to work, they should be willing to spend some of this money they have in savings, which should fuel demand for additional workers.

The problem with enhanced unemployment benefits is it gives workers a disincentive to work, and an incentive to get laid off. It is also likely funding some of the civil unrest that is causing a lot of long term harm to the poorest of communities. I believe not extending the enhanced unemployment will get the protests and more importantly, the riots to stop, which should be more important to Trump's election prospects. Not extending the enhanced unemployment also gives Democrat governors and local officials political cover for keeping their economies closed longer than is necessary (while allowing political convenient protests).

Whoever Biden chooses to be VP will effectively be the president on Feb 1 2021 if Biden is elected. They will probably have the title of President by the end of 2024. I would reserve judgment until Biden announces his VP pick, however since effectively winning the nomination, Biden has been pulled further to the left by Bernie Bros, so who knows what kind of presidency a Biden administration would be.

I've thought from the start that it'll be Kamala Harris, and I still think so. This'll make the ticket even worse, since she's an authoritarian neoliberal who only cares about power.

I would have thought that Harris' attack on Biden's stance on busing in one of the debates would prevent her from getting the VP pick. Harris' policies on crime have also negatively affected africian-Americans disproportionately, which wouldn't do any favors to the ticket.  I would consider most elected Democrats as authoritarian tyrants, especially after the coronavirus lockdowns, and even more so after the riots.

I would say that either Val Dennings or Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are most likely to be Biden's VP pick. Either of these would help Biden play the identity politics card, and would help him ignore that it was democrat governors and mayors who allowed the riots to do so much damage to poor neighborhoods.

If Biden is pandering to far leftists, I have no reason to discount that his administration would not be a far-leftist administration. Keep in mind that Biden lacks the mental capacity to make actual decisions, so whoever is his VP will likely be the one to actually making decisions the president would normally make.

If Biden is pandering to the crazy leftists, he will likely turn off moderate voters in the 2020 election. The response to the coronavirus and the civil unrest has shown Democratic leaders' tyrannical tendencies, which I believe will hurt Democrats down ballot.

It's possible that he, or his VP rather, go completely deranged and start implementing unpopular policy but I think establishment democrats won't let that happen. Nancy Pelosi's done a decent job not letting the progressive newly elected members (AOC, Rashida Tlaib, ect.) from shifting the party even further left through any significant legislation that's made any sort of difference. I'd assume Biden's  administration would be the same way because far left legislation WILL get out independents to vote Republican down the line in 2022.

Following Obama's election in 08, Republicans won in an absolute landslide in Congress during midterms, maybe because of Obamacare.

Pelosi is not in charge of presidential politics, she is only in charge of Congress. If Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, I would expect the Supreme Court to get packed, and for fair elections to be removed.

[Gyfts]

I've thought from the start that it'll be Kamala Harris, and I still think so. This'll make the ticket even worse, since she's an authoritarian neoliberal who only cares about power.

Kamala Harris hopped on the "Defund the police" bandwagon and is applauding Eric Garcetti's decision to defund the LAPD.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/502187-harris-grapples-with-defund-the-police-movement-amid-veep-talk

Defunding the police is wildly unpopular among anyone that isn't on the far left because of the contradictory notion of wanting better trained police officers and decreasing resources to get better trained officers. Kamala Harris switches her position on whatever's popular at the time and its obnoxious. I fully expect a walk back from this when it comes November.

[Pelosi is not in charge of presidential politics, she is only in charge of Congress. If Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, I would expect the Supreme Court to get packed, and for fair elections to be removed.

True, but it goes to show you that there is tension between establishment democrats in shifting the party further to the left. If a democrat were to win, the house majority leader would definitely become involved in the executive branch in coordinating legislation. Biden could adopt leftist policies but I think his administration would be Obama 2.0 (unless he gets completely hounded by the left).

[squatz1]

Right now Trump's reelection chances are looking pretty bad. The real economy is in tatters, he isn't perceived as handling coronavirus well, and apparently his handling of the Floyd issue was received very poorly. (I though that he struck a pretty moderate tone in his speeches on the matter, and while I strongly oppose it, I thought that sending in the military against rioters would be popular, so I'm surprised that people seem to overwhelmingly hate his response on this.)

The even bigger issue is that the Trump campaign has seemingly abandoned reality and prefers to live in a comfortable fantasy-land. Rather than acknowledge polls they don't like, they call them fake news. Rather than deal with the fact that 13% unemployment is both terrible on its face and probably a big underestimate due to various counting issues, they tout the unexpectedly-low number as a rocket-ship recovery and act as though the Fed-inflated stock market means anything to the average person. The average person is likely to increasingly be suffering economically as time goes on, regardless of what the numbers say. Rather than try to reach out at all, Trump focuses on appealing to his base. You can't improve your situation unless you realize that there are improvements to be made, and I feel like the Trump campaign is unwilling to find their flaws so that they can fix them. They should have the attitude of, "We got dealt a really bad hand and then furthermore made several mistakes, but we're still going to analyze the situation rationally and make the moves that give us the best chances of winning from here," rather than, "Everything is actually OK, and we can more-or-less continue with what we wanted to do and feel most comfortable doing."

At this point the betting odds give Biden something like a 52% chance of winning, and I think that this substantially underestimates Biden's chances. I prefer Trump over Biden, so it's disappointing. It'd especially be bad if the Democrats take the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, which looks possible right now.

Things can change, of course. The economy in reality won't come anywhere near recovering by November, but maybe Fed action + more stimulus can make it look as though things have improved quite a bit. It's likely that the Floyd issue will be forgotten by then. Biden is a truly terrible candidate, and maybe he'll totally fall apart with Trump's help. But in November Trump is definitely going to be in a much worse position than he was throughout most of his presidency.

Would much rather use 538 - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

The problem with 538 is that it's run by highly-biased Democrat-establishmentarians who don't realize how biased they are, so they tend to make mistakes. The RCP method is also flawed, but at least it's likely to be flawed in a more neutral way. Best to look at both sites, plus the details of the individual polls if it's important to you.

Eh I'm not sure that was a moderate tone. Continuing to post LAW AND ORDER on your twitter doesn't typically evoke the feeling of moderate, it reminds me of a law and order conservative. But his speeches may have had a different tone.

Sending in the military/national guard would typically be more popular -- but it's the way you do it which is the problem. The guy wanted to take a photo op in front of the church in D.C and tear gassed peaceful protesters because of it. Not a good look in the least. If he came out and said something like -- I support the peaceful protesters and said that they have a right to protest and all that, and then said that he'd be heavily cracking down on those that are rioting because we will not let our cities fall to these rioters. There may have been a different tone on all of this, but Trump doesn't do that.

You're right when it comes to Trump and his administration (and campaign) living in a fantasy land. If Trump was to come out and say -- yes, our response wasn't great, but this isn't something that anyone could've forseen -- we're doing our best given the situation, people would be more likely to accept this. Trump has to relate more with everyday people, as these are the people who truly put him into office. Those folks in the swing states (PA, Wisc, Mich) probably still don't have their jobs, and are mad that all Trump cares about is the stock market prices.

Stock market prices are great and all, but regular everyday people care about wage growth, more opportunities, jobs, etc. Give them the best shot at life, and prove to them that you're working for them, and you'll be fine.

I still think this race is up in the air. Biden is a horrid candidate as well and will be tossed around by Trump on the debate stage. Biden is leading in polls not because people are saying "I love Biden" it's more "I hate Trump". Who knows if that will translate into votes in November.

In regards to the 538 portion of things - Well yes, but they do a pretty good job (IMO) of rating the different pollsters and making all of the polls balance out.  Using both is fine though, more just personal preference.

[theymos]

If he came out and said something like -- I support the peaceful protesters and said that they have a right to protest and all that, and then said that he'd be heavily cracking down on those that are rioting because we will not let our cities fall to these rioters. There may have been a different tone on all of this, but Trump doesn't do that.

That's pretty much what he said:
https://youtu.be/--99sqBGHMY?t=1009

@18:22 I understand the pain that people are feeling. We support the right of peaceful protesters, and we hear their pleas. But what we are now seeing on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with justice or peace. The memory of George Floyd is being dishonored by rioters, looters, and anarchists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgWwm-r6Z0Q

@0:45 We cannot allow the righteous cries of peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mod. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities, and as their president, I will fight to keep them safe. I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters.

I don't agree with a lot of what he's saying in these speeches, but I thought that they were pretty moderate and politically appropriate for the mood of the country. I don't watch TV or use social media, though, so I live in my own sort of bubble; clearly I got a different perception than many.

[squatz1]

If he came out and said something like -- I support the peaceful protesters and said that they have a right to protest and all that, and then said that he'd be heavily cracking down on those that are rioting because we will not let our cities fall to these rioters. There may have been a different tone on all of this, but Trump doesn't do that.

That's pretty much what he said:
https://youtu.be/--99sqBGHMY?t=1009

@18:22 I understand the pain that people are feeling. We support the right of peaceful protesters, and we hear their pleas. But what we are now seeing on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with justice or peace. The memory of George Floyd is being dishonored by rioters, looters, and anarchists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgWwm-r6Z0Q

@0:45 We cannot allow the righteous cries of peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mod. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities, and as their president, I will fight to keep them safe. I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters.

I don't agree with a lot of what he's saying in these speeches, but I thought that they were pretty moderate and politically appropriate for the mood of the country. I don't watch TV or use social media, though, so I live in my own sort of bubble; clearly I got a different perception than many.

I meant more as a uniformed statement. He may have been moderate in the one speech itself, but on Twitter / his actions are a bit of a different story. Though with the recent executive order and pulling the national guard out of areas it seems like he is walking back some of his comments and actions. He also cancelled the rally he was going to be holding on the 19th.

His actions have to support the statement. As his whole D.C. photo op looked HORRID.

[TECSHARE]

I meant more as a uniformed statement. He may have been moderate in the one speech itself, but on Twitter / his actions are a bit of a different story. Though with the recent executive order and pulling the national guard out of areas it seems like he is walking back some of his comments and actions. He also cancelled the rally he was going to be holding on the 19th.

His actions have to support the statement. As his whole D.C. photo op looked HORRID.

Governors made the decision to pull out The National Guard, he can not unilaterally deploy them domestically. Also he is smart enough to know this is all bait, and the dems would LOVE nothing more than him going in hard and shutting this disaster they created so they can blame it all on him. He is making the smart move and letting these leftists just wallow in the bed that they just shit in. Also it never ceases to amaze me that any kind of moderation is treated as walking back or weakness, then you pretend to wonder why everyone is so divisive and divided.

[squatz1]

I meant more as a uniformed statement. He may have been moderate in the one speech itself, but on Twitter / his actions are a bit of a different story. Though with the recent executive order and pulling the national guard out of areas it seems like he is walking back some of his comments and actions. He also cancelled the rally he was going to be holding on the 19th.

His actions have to support the statement. As his whole D.C. photo op looked HORRID.

Governors made the decision to pull out The National Guard, he can not unilaterally deploy them domestically. Also he is smart enough to know this is all bait, and the dems would LOVE nothing more than him going in hard and shutting this disaster they created so they can blame it all on him. He is making the smart move and letting these leftists just wallow in the bed that they just shit in. Also it never ceases to amaze me that any kind of moderation is treated as walking back or weakness, then you pretend to wonder why everyone is so divisive and divided.

But he did take the bait -- the guy literally teargassed peaceful protestors in D.C. as a show of force so he could take a photo op. Is there anyway that you could justify that photo op as many any sense? No one wants to see peaceful protesters being rushed by police with the reason of "The President wants to take a picture in front of the Church"

The optics behind doing that was horrible, and you know it's true TecShare.

[TECSHARE]

But he did take the bait -- the guy literally teargassed peaceful protestors in D.C. as a show of force so he could take a photo op. Is there anyway that you could justify that photo op as many any sense? No one wants to see peaceful protesters being rushed by police with the reason of "The President wants to take a picture in front of the Church"

The optics behind doing that was horrible, and you know it's true TecShare.

Give me a fucking break. The POTUS should be able to cross the street in front of The White House safely. I can absolutely justify it, it was him sending a message that you don't get to riot out of control, and at any time he can end this. That is called deterrent effect. No one was teargassed, and they were given an order to disperse with several warnings, making their presence there ILLEGAL. This is a well established precedent.

These are not fucking peaceful protestors. They are rioters, and at best intentionally serving as cover for rioters. If they weren't they would be regulating themselves. I see it any time there is a conservative rally when some ass hat wants to start shit, usually intentionally trying to make them look bad. They get shut down FAST by ACTUAL peaceful protestors. All these city centers are being burned to the ground, police being poisoned, murdered, people being beat, robbed and shot, but OH THE HUMANITY! WHATABOUT MUH TEARY BOIS! You are either a fucking chump or a liar if you pretend this was a lopsided use of force. As far as the optics and as far as the media goes Trump could walk on water and the media would report that he can't swim. The only ones sucking down this propaganda jizm are the ones who are already true believers of the orange man bad at all costs cult.

[squatz1]

But he did take the bait -- the guy literally teargassed peaceful protestors in D.C. as a show of force so he could take a photo op. Is there anyway that you could justify that photo op as many any sense? No one wants to see peaceful protesters being rushed by police with the reason of "The President wants to take a picture in front of the Church"

The optics behind doing that was horrible, and you know it's true TecShare.

Give me a fucking break. The POTUS should be able to cross the street in front of The White House safely. I can absolutely justify it, it was him sending a message that you don't get to riot out of control, and at any time he can end this. That is called deterrent effect. No one was teargassed, and they were given an order to disperse with several warnings, making their presence there ILLEGAL. This is a well established precedent.

These are not fucking peaceful protestors. They are rioters, and at best intentionally serving as cover for rioters. If they weren't they would be regulating themselves. I see it any time there is a conservative rally when some ass hat wants to start shit, usually intentionally trying to make them look bad. They get shut down FAST by ACTUAL peaceful protestors. All these city centers are being burned to the ground, police being poisoned, murdered, people being beat, robbed and shot, but OH THE HUMANITY! WHATABOUT MUH TEARY BOIS! You are either a fucking chump or a liar if you pretend this was a lopsided use of force. As far as the optics and as far as the media goes Trump could walk on water and the media would report that he can't swim. The only ones sucking down this propaganda jizm are the ones who are already true believers of the orange man bad at all costs cult.

The ones in DC at the time weren't rioters. They were peaceful protesters.

You can literally see that in so many videos. It's not like these people were all attempting to break into the WH. Trump had a plan where he wanted to go to the church and take a picture -- but he wouldn't be able to do so because there were protestors in the surrounding areas (where they're allowed to be protesting) Everyone in this country has a right to peacefully protest.

In some areas are people rioting? Yes.

Are the majority of people rioting? No.

Did the authorize the use of force against peaceful protesters to take his picture? Yes.

Like.....

[TECSHARE]

The ones in DC at the time weren't rioters. They were peaceful protesters.

You can literally see that in so many videos. It's not like these people were all attempting to break into the WH. Trump had a plan where he wanted to go to the church and take a picture -- but he wouldn't be able to do so because there were protestors in the surrounding areas (where they're allowed to be protesting) Everyone in this country has a right to peacefully protest.

In some areas are people rioting? Yes.

Are the majority of people rioting? No.

Did the authorize the use of force against peaceful protesters to take his picture? Yes.

Like.....

OH WELL IN THAT CASE! I guess we can just ignore all of this and pretend it is all perfectly safe and that these "peaceful protestors" weren't throwing projectiles and setting shit on fire among other things because dipshits like you unilaterally declare them "peaceful".

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-release-names-of-people-charged-with-rioting-looting/2318395/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/washington-dc-mayor-imposes-7pm-curfew-after-riots

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/31/aftermath-washington-dc-riot-george-floyd/

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/315402-police-arrest-at-least-217-during-inauguration-day-protests

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/st-johns-church-washington-dc-george-floyd-protest/65-6dc44732-8560-4179-91ca-0ad56b96e0c9

It was totally peaceful... except for all the arson, murders, beatings, and the looting, except for that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LT9iAZITlk

Just look at all that peace they're spreading!

[nutildah]

The ones in DC at the time weren't rioters. They were peaceful protesters.

You can literally see that in so many videos. It's not like these people were all attempting to break into the WH. Trump had a plan where he wanted to go to the church and take a picture -- but he wouldn't be able to do so because there were protestors in the surrounding areas (where they're allowed to be protesting) Everyone in this country has a right to peacefully protest.

In some areas are people rioting? Yes.

Are the majority of people rioting? No.

Did the authorize the use of force against peaceful protesters to take his picture? Yes.

Like.....

OH WELL IN THAT CASE! I guess we can just ignore all of this and pretend it is all perfectly safe and that these "peaceful protestors" weren't throwing projectiles and setting shit on fire among other things because dipshits like you unilaterally declare them "peaceful".

There were no "rioters" dispersed from Lafayette Square on the day in question. Zero. They were largely peaceful protestors who weren't "setting shit on fire." You are attempting to conflate them with the rioters who set fire to the church the preceding night. The protesters weren't damaging anything and were cleared specifically so Trump could take a photo op holding a bible.

He didn't even stop to pray or anything. Just grabbed a bible, made sure he was holding it right-side up, audibly reminded the press corps that "this is a bible," and went back to the White House.

What would have been more powerful is if he went to just go talk to the protestors on a personal level. But because he's a coward who is totally out of touch with what is going on, he needed the police to disperse them with smoke, tear gas and pepper pellets, just so he could take a picture.

He's a disgrace, and so are those who willfully disregard reality in order to toady for him with bated breath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op

[Spendulus]

....

He didn't even stop to pray or anything. Just grabbed a bible, made sure he was holding it right-side up, audibly reminded the press corps that "this is a bible," and went back to the White House.

What would have been more powerful is if he went to just go talk to the protestors on a personal level. ...

I wonder how realistic it is to offer such a suggestion. That is, knowing that the same crowd the previous day sheltered terrorists, and this one likely did also.

[squatz1]

The ones in DC at the time weren't rioters. They were peaceful protesters.

You can literally see that in so many videos. It's not like these people were all attempting to break into the WH. Trump had a plan where he wanted to go to the church and take a picture -- but he wouldn't be able to do so because there were protestors in the surrounding areas (where they're allowed to be protesting) Everyone in this country has a right to peacefully protest.

In some areas are people rioting? Yes.

Are the majority of people rioting? No.

Did the authorize the use of force against peaceful protesters to take his picture? Yes.

Like.....

OH WELL IN THAT CASE! I guess we can just ignore all of this and pretend it is all perfectly safe and that these "peaceful protestors" weren't throwing projectiles and setting shit on fire among other things because dipshits like you unilaterally declare them "peaceful".

There were no "rioters" dispersed from Lafayette Square on the day in question. Zero. They were largely peaceful protestors who weren't "setting shit on fire." You are attempting to conflate them with the rioters who set fire to the church the preceding night. The protesters weren't damaging anything and were cleared specifically so Trump could take a photo op holding a bible.

He didn't even stop to pray or anything. Just grabbed a bible, made sure he was holding it right-side up, audibly reminded the press corps that "this is a bible," and went back to the White House.

What would have been more powerful is if he went to just go talk to the protestors on a personal level. But because he's a coward who is totally out of touch with what is going on, he needed the police to disperse them with smoke, tear gas and pepper pellets, just so he could take a picture.

He's a disgrace, and so are those who willfully disregard reality in order to toady for him with bated breath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op

....

I'm not sure if TecShare understands that there is a major different between peaceful protesters and rioters. There's nothing wrong with peaceful protesters.

Rioters - Yes, I do think they should be brought to justice by the police. Force should be used to stop them from burning down cities. But there aren't peaceful protesters, and there is a large difference between the two groups.

You're right - if Trump went in front of the protestors and told them his administration was going to help to push for the reforms they want, he would look pretty solid. He should've unveiled his recent EO at that point. (The Executive Order regarding police reform, just came out a few days ago)

I don't think he is a disgrace though.

[TECSHARE]

I wonder how realistic it is to offer such a suggestion. That is, knowing that the same crowd the previous day sheltered terrorists, and this one likely did also.

Terrorists according to who? Pretty sweet for Trump that he just gets to call vast, unidentified swaths of the American public "terrorists" and his authoritarian toadies will follow him anywhere with it.

I guess its not very feasible seeing how much of the country despises him, but talking to the protesters face-to-face would have been symbolic of strength and leadership -- two qualities he simply does not possess.

Trump toads should really ask themselves a question: what happened during the leadership of your president that forced him to call his own citizens "terrorists"?

According to the law. You got it all wrong. His base has been calling for ANTIFA to be labeled a terrorist organization since 2016 at least, because that is what they are. They use violence and intimidation to effect political change. That is the definition of terrorism under federal law. Stop pretending like you cunts are interested in any kind of discussion. That time has long since past and you have been riding on the pretense so long no one believes you any more. Now you see the results. Terrorists hate this one simple trick! What comes next will shock you!

[Spendulus]

I wonder how realistic it is to offer such a suggestion. That is, knowing that the same crowd the previous day sheltered terrorists, and this one likely did also.

Terrorists according to who? Pretty sweet for Trump that he just gets to call vast, unidentified swaths of the American public "terrorists" and his authoritarian toadies will follow him anywhere with it.

I guess its not very feasible seeing how much of the country despises him, but talking to the protesters face-to-face would have been symbolic of strength and leadership -- two qualities he simply does not possess.

Trump toads should really ask themselves a question: what happened during the leadership of your president that forced him to call his own citizens "terrorists"?

I can see how the face to face standup shoutdown could have worked as you described, but it would have required padding the crowd with fake "protesters", who were really MAGA. A plausible and typical thing for knuckle dragging, lowbrow Democrats, but something that likely didn't even occur to Trump or his associates.

[KingScorpio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgWwm-r6Z0Q

I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters.

LOL. "Unless you're in the way of my ill conceived photo op, then you can fuck right off."







Pretty sure a ham sandwich could beat Trump at this point. I didn't bother to hold my nose and vote for Hillary (she was a shoe-in where I lived anyway), but I can certainly do so for Biden. I think a lot of people who didn't vote for Hildog last time are of a similar mindset. We'll see. Not looking forward to the debates.

trump needs a much more brutal and badass police

[Spendulus]

....I'm not sure if TecShare understands that there is a major different between peaceful protesters and rioters. There's nothing wrong with peaceful protesters......

He understands, as apparently you do not, that Antifa has been actively providing cover and support for violent rioters, while trying to hide under a supposed "movement not organization" subterfuge.

You need to ask some basic questions, like "Where and who is the Central Command behind the recent nation wide organized protests and nation wide organized violence."